Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
the issue is, that no we aren't. If I'm murdered because someone hates hippies, my killer gets life, but if someone who's gay is killed because they are gay, then that killer gets a harsher sentence or is deterred by the thought of a harsher sentence. now just how the hell does that come out to being equal?
|
Hate laws are an equalizer because they offer harsher punishments for people targeting specific social groups. The social groups protected under law have a history of being widely targeted. Now I don't know if hippies are being targeted and need similar protection (perhaps they are under "religion" or "political affiliation").
Anyway, the answer to your question is that they aren't equal crimes. A crime against someone based on sexual orientation is deemed worse than a crime against someone based on their affiliation with a subculture. Though I'd like to think that perhaps if such a crime were committed that the accused would be charged for a hate crime under the aforementioned categories.
Basically, there is a huge difference between being associated with a subculture and being gay.
Much worse came out of the world for hating Jews than for hating hippies. Perhaps this legislation will help prevent bad things from happening to the gay community.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
what does that mean?
I don't get to have EXTRA punishment against someone who killed my loved one because they aren't gay or a protected group?
I'm fine with HATE SPEECH crimes as expressed by MM, but as far as the crime itself, BG stealing a pair of shoes has levels of crime already, steal cheap shoes, it's petite larceny, steal Jimmy Choo boots, grand larceny.
so what in essence you're saying by the levels is that it's a WORSE level than the original crime, because if it's not then what's the point of the legislation?
|
It's as simple as this: if someone is killed because of what they are, there are two crimes at play: a murder and a hate crime.
It's silly to think we can legislate hate crimes laws under everything that anyone hates. What we do instead is legislate for hate crimes that are problems with specific groups: this has been narrowed down to things like religion, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, race, ethnicity, etc. If someone is the victim of a crime because of some other reason, it's tragic. But the focus for hate crimes law is to provide protection to large and highly identifiable groups that have a history for being victimized for what they are. Without these laws they, as entire groups, aren't as equal as the average person. With a history of the group being targeted, an individual within that group lives with the probability of being targeted unlike those who aren't a part of a specific targeted group.
This is what I mean by it not being "extra" protection. It's merely protection to bring these groups closer to the baseline, i.e. a level of safety afforded to those not a part of these specific targeted groups.